Some of those who made money during the 1990s are in danger of denying the same
economic opportunity to others

http://www.jewishworldreview.com --
BACK IN 1986, a bipartisan tax reform threatened to prune away
many of the special breaks for specific groups contained in the
US tax code. Wall Street sent its warriors to defend the
precious loopholes - it was particularly worried about
tax-exempt municipal bonds.

Among those doing battle was a Goldman Sachs executive,
who warned that the early version of the legislation endangered
"the very concept of tax exemption". The name of the man
chosen to represent Wall Street was Jon Corzine.

Fast forward a decade and a half. The same Mr Corzine has now stepped down from the
co-chairmanship of Goldman Sachs, and is a multi-millionaire. He is spending a good share of
his fortune trying to be elected as a senator for New Jersey. In speeches, he attacks the
federal government for caving in so often to "special interests who wield the power of their
money". This is despite the fact that his campaign is all about the power of money. He is
outspending his opponent - a fortune-less Republican - by a factor of 10.

What is it about America's newly prosperous that makes them seem like split personalities?
What makes them turn so flamboyantly against their own kind, particularly as they get older?
The shift seems almost religious. The impulse to turn pure and to compensate for years of
greed is a strong one - the same feeling that inspires many senior citizens to try to "die
broke".

David Brooks, author of Bobos in Paradise , a book about America's new wealth culture,
says the expiatory attitude is rooted in the 1960s. Then, many of today's millionaires were
rebellious students. The fact that they have become even richer than their parents
embarrasses them no end. "In England, people who become rich are often Essex Man types,
self-made men who resent the cultured aristocracy," says Mr Brooks. "In America, they are
university educated sophisticates who want to show that just because they are rich they
are not crass Donald Trump wannabes."

The fear of the crass is particularly among the new internet rich, who went from zero to
megawealth in a matter of years. Rather like Hollywood actors who have risen rapidly from
obscurity to stardom, many of them wonder whether they really deserve their private jets,
and their third homes. So they go to great lengths to prove their anti-materialistic bona fides.

Corzine

Whatever the reason for it, the rich split personality is on the rise. A 1998 study sponsored
by the non-partisan National Journal looked at 100 of the richest towns in America. It found
that in the course of the previous five presidential elections, the Democratic share of the
vote increased from about 25 per cent to 41 per cent.

Indeed, Mr Corzine is not alone this year in having to face awkward questions. In the
Washington state Senate race, the e-entrepreneur Maria Cantwell is spending $5m of the
cash she earned through the explosive free market expansion of her company,
RealNetworks, to campaign on a platform of "managed growth". Ms Cantwell says she also
wants to fight to put the "interests of constituents before those of powerful lobbyists" -
although she is using her own cash to lobby voters to back her.

The important question is what happens after the campaign if such approaches become
policy. What will be the effect on the economy, and the chances of others enjoying the same
prosperity as these new politicians? One has to wonder whether they are - deliberately or
inadvertently - shutting the door of economic opportunity behind them.

Consider Mr Corzine. His platform promises a string of "universals" so long it could have
been penned by Clement Attlee, the post-war Labour prime minister. They include universal
health care, universal long-term care, universal quality public education, universal gun
registration and, perhaps most important, "universal access and opportunity". The last
category comprises issues of consumer and citizens' rights - keeping auto insurance cheap
and ending race discrimination. In other words, making lower earners more comfortable.

But when it comes to a policy most likely to allow millions of others to climb the economic
ladder - the privatisation of America's Social Security public pensions scheme - Mr Corzine
turns hostile. Under reforms supported by Republicans - and a number of Democrats - the
government would allow workers to shift a share of their Social Security payments into
individual investment accounts.

For the first time, many modest earners would become shareholders - in other words, get a
peek into the world of Goldman Sachs. Yet Mr Corzine is vehement in his opposition. "I am
opposed to my mother being forced to invest and manage a private Social Security account,"
he insists.

Mr Corzine's split personality may be more dramatic than most, but it is not untypical. White
House tax policy in the past decade has been split policy, writ large. The administration made
a great show of raising the top marginal income tax rates in 1993. The rich must pay their
share, insisted Robert Rubin, the former Treasury secretary and fellow partner with Mr
Corzine in Goldman Sachs.

Yet the truly rich were not the worst affected by the switch, for much of their money comes
as capital gains. The bigger losers were employees, whose income comes mainly in the
form of wages. The administration later cut capital gains, a decision that favoured the
Goldman Sachs crowd. But it insisted - for "equity's sake" - on leaving the top income tax
rate in place.

This is not to say Republicans cannot be split souls too, or that Republican businessmen
haven't deployed their fortunes to make their way in politics - witness Steve Forbes, the
independent presidential candidate. But at least the Forbes of American politics enjoy an
advantage that the Bobos who aspire to public office do not. In their efforts to appeal to the
electorate, they do not have to deny their own
careers.

10/10/00: 'Equity Rights' or Wake up and Smell the Starbucks10/04/00: Trapped in the basement of global capitalism09/21/00: The final act of a grand presidential tragedy09/21/00: Europeans strike back at the fuel tax monster. Should Americans follow?09/18/00: First steps to success09/13/00: America rejects the human rights transplant09/07/00: Minimum wage, maximum cost09/05/00: Prudent Al Gore plans some serious spending08/31/00: A revolution fails to bring power to the people08/28/00: A reali$tic poll08/21/00: "I Goofed" 08/16/00: Part of the union, but not part of the party
08/09/00: Silicon Alley Secrets08/02/00: Radical Republicans warm up for Philadelphia07/31/00: I'll Cry if I Want To07/27/00: Cold warrior of the new world07/25/00: The Estate Tax will drop dead07/18/00: Shooting down the anti-missile defence myths07/14/00: A convenient punchbag for America's leaders07/07/00: How to destroy the pharmaceutical industry07/05/00: Patriots and bleeding hearts06/30/00: Candidates beware: New Washington consensus on robust growth stands the old wisdom on its head06/28/00: White America's flight to educational quality06/26/00: How Hillary inspired the feminist infobabes